Majority
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated May 18, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), and the defendant third-party plaintiff separately appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification against the third-party defendant.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendant third-party plaintiff payable by the plaintiffs and one bill of costs to the third-party defendant payable by the defendant third-party plaintiff.
In response to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitle
The Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff. Florio, J.E, Krausman, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Cajamarca v. Interconex, Inc. 8 AD3d 602 p. 784
- Boguszewski v. Solo Salon & Spa 309 AD2d 777 p. 784
- Ortiz v. Turner Construction Co. 28 AD3d 627 p. 784
- Olberding v. Dixie Contracting, Inc. 302 AD2d 574 p. 784
- Zuckerman v. City of New York 49 NY2d 557 at 562 p. 784